im 100% canadian, I dont live in the US and wondering about your system.
so as i understand your political system, a president can only hold office 2 terms. in Trumps case, he served once already, does that mean he can only serve one more, or is the clock reset and he gets a shot at 8 years?
It’s 2 total terms. There’s no “resetting the clock” in that rule. Any attempt to remain in power for a third term would be blatantly unconstitutional.
That said, there’s a real concern that he’s likely to try anyway, and a non-zero chance that he’d succeed if he manages to fill enough of the government and military with people more loyal to him than to the constitution.
It’s worth mentioning that this has only been the case since the 1950’s. FDR was elected four times and died during his final term, after which term limits were added to the constitution in response.
It means this is his last term, barring any changes to the law or extralegal shenanigans, period.
He gets two terms, whether they’re split up or not. This is his last term by law.
He’s probably just going to stay anyway, because Republicans have managed to infect government with the kinds of losers who would back something like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” doesn’t say consecutively. It would take a HUUUUGE leap of logic to insert that word where it doesn’t exist. I’m sure someone will make the argument, but by the letter and the intent of the law, Trump is done after this term.
“and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” If Trump has a heart attack and dies before January 20, 2027, Vance would take over and serve 2+ years as President, meaning he could only be elected once for one four-year term.
The rest of Section 1 just means anyone who was in office at the time is grandfathered into the old rules (no limits).
It would take a HUUUUGE leap of logic
US Fifth Circuit of Appeals and Supreme Courts: “Hold My Beer”
For example, if Trump’s Republican Congress gets rid of elections, then this Amendment doesn’t matter.
They probably won’t get rid of elections… they’ll just have sham elections like Russia has to give the impression of “legitimacy” but I guarantee they’ll be heavily rigged in their favor.
The logic train has left the station in the US judicial system.
Trump’s SCOTUS: trump isn’t a person, he’s an idea, a movement, therefore term limits are not applicable to him.
In that case they should free his would be assassins, nothing illegal about trying to kill a movement, just ask the CIA, they do it all the time.
Legally he can’t. But legally that fucker should have been in jail long ago, so who knows.
Right, there’s also a constitutional amendment saying insurrectionists can’t stand for office
I really wish Biden had gone after him 10% as hard as he went after Sanders.
Biden is the chief executive I don’t know why the courts had any say in executing a law that is already on the books. A strong president would have done his job executing the law and making the SC enforce their over reaching decision themselves.
Does it even matter? trump can get convicted of insurrection but the supreme court can just decide that he hasnt committed an act of insurrection based on their interpretation.
Whos gonna enforce their decision? Every cop and every corrections officer in the country are under the executive branch and answer to the president, not the judicial or legislative branches. What Biden tells them goes, no ifs ands or buts.
States run elections. Even if Biden were do try to prevent trump from appearing on the ballot, the states doesnt have to obey, especially if the supreme court’s decision is contrary to the president’s orders. And if trump appears on ballots, throwing him in prison wont do any good since if elected, as he did in our timeline, he becomes president on January 20th and can order the military to break him out of prison, whether state or federal prison.
And if the states somehow prevented trump from appearing on ballots, we’d be in a constitutional crisis and also a state vs federal government political crisis. Pro trump supporters will cite the supreme court decision as a rallying call to trump supporters around the country to protest, and use violence if necesary.
Well you might say, who cares what his supporters have to say. But the point is if the 14th amendment has a more clear procedures of how to invoke the part about insurrectionists being inelibible. trump could be barred from office and the prorests would’ve been minimal since the media would portay it as more legitimate. But unfortunately, the 14th amendment is so vague that the supreme court decision would paint a different picture in the media and in public opinion, making it seem like Biden is being tyrannical.
Well its a good thing Biden avoided seeming like a tyrant so that an actual tyrant could take power. That makes it make sense. Maybe I just don’t have the money and comfort afforded to politicians and that’s why I don’t understand their decision making. Most of these ghould probably made a lot of money during the Trump years.
Too bad people who wrote that didn’t specify what it meant.
Like does it mean:
A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.
B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection
C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection
D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection.
E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection.
Because
A is just dumb,
B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.
C also allows partisan shenanigans
D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.
E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection.
So yea they should’ve worded it better on what it means.
US Presidents are limited to two terms, it doesn’t matter if they are consecutive. Grover Cleveland is the only other president who has served two non-consecutive terms.
Term-limits are a relatively recent addition though, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was only ratified in 1951 after Franklin Roosevelt served four terms.
And just an addendum for non-Americans who also aren’t likely/don’t have time to click the links, FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was elected to 4 terms but died 82 days into his 4th term. He was succeeded by the vice president, Harry S. Truman.
Prior to FDR all presidents had voluntarily limited themselves to 2 terms following the precedent of the first president, George Washington. FDR’s running for a 3rd term was controversial at the time; in 1940 the U.S. had not yet joined the Second World War and intervening was still controversial, although opposition dwindled with the fall of France. Interestingly, FDR seeking a 4th term was much less controversial with the U.S. in the thick of the war in 1944. The constitution was amended a few years later to make sure it didn’t happen again, though.
Not always voluntary. Some tried for a third term and failed. Theo Roosevelt tried for a third term in 1912. Though his first term was taking over after McKinley was assassinated, but it was only some months in, and that would be covered as a first full term under the later amendment.
Legally, yes. (But of course, the Supreme Court has turned interpreting the Constitution into a game of Calvinball.)
I think it’s technically written as 10 years. If a vice president replaced the president, he could serve 2 more terms as long as he only replaced the president for 2 years. If he served out more than 2 years, he could only be president for 1 additional term.
Two terms, regardless if consecutive or not.
Technically the limit is on if a person can be elected to the office. It might be possible for a person that have been elected president 2 times to the run for vice president and have a loyalist run as president, then have the loyalist resign after getting sworn in and making the VP president. But a person that isnt eligible for president should not be eligible for vice president either. But we dont know if this means a person who isnt eligible to be elected president can become vice president, since the person can still serve as president, just not elected to it. We don’t know since this has never been court tested.
Also if a person serve less than 2 years, they can still run for 2 terms. So even without the “president resign and VP becomes president” shenanigan, a person can technically serve for 10 years minus 1 day.
Also, the speaker of the house does not have to be a member of the house. So technically a person who has been elected 2 terms can be chosen as speaker of the house, then have the president and vice president resign and the person now become acting president for the rest of the term. I’m pretty sure this maneuver doesnt need to go through courts since you can become speaker of the house even if you are inelligible to become president or vice president, so it wouldn’t prevent the person from being speaker, and the text on the 22nd amendment only prevents a person form being elected more than twice, no mention of any limit on if a person can serve or act as president.
Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk on political shenanigans.
It’s two terms period. They do not have to be consecutive. There are ways for a President to serve more than 8 years but it’s very specific and not really applicable in Trumps case. Unless they decide to toss out the constitution, which honestly seems kinda likely, then it’s two terms.
But he’s also a 80 year old man who eats McDonalds and coca cola while painting himself with orange, probably lead based, paint. I don’t expect him to survive the next 4 years to be able to run again.
“Walk for president”
The two term limit was set by the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The language in it is that no person may be elected to the office of President for more than two terms. It does not specify any criteria about consecutive terms, meaning it doesn’t matter. They simply can’t be elected more than twice to the office President under any conditions. It also specifies that if they served more than two years as President when they weren’t elected to that office (such as when a VP assumes the office after the President dies), they can’t be elected to the office of President more than once. In other words, a 2+ year term of a president after succeeding the previous president whose term ends early, counts as a full term in regard to this 2 term limit.
In other words, this SHOULD be his last term. There are two legal loopholes, however. 1) If he somehow managed to coerce a skip or elimination of the next election, he could assume another term without defying the constitution. There is currently no mechanism to do that, but an act of a partisan Congress upheld by the partisan Supreme Court could make such a thing possible. 2) if he ran as VP for another person, which is constitutionally allowed, he could be elected as VP and then the elected President could resign, die, or be removed from office and Trump would be President again. Also, a new amendment to the constitution could be passed to negate or modify the 22nd amendments’ term limit. Though that would require a lot of Democrats also voting for it.
- if he ran as VP for another person, which is constitutionally allowed, he could be elected as VP
This is an interesting, but untested, legal theory. When Al Gore ran in 2000, there were murmurings of whether he should try to get Bill Clinton on the ticket as VP. Ultimately, there was some consensus that this part of 12th Amendment wasn’t superseded by any others: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
It’s a bit of an open question whether that means only those parts of the eligibility requirements in place at the time (35 years old, natural born citizen, etc), or whether new requirements are also included, such as already serving two full terms as President. Clinton/Gore didn’t want to push those boundaries, but Trump certainly could try.
Edit: The 2012 book Constitutional Cliffhangers has a whole chapter dedicated to this and similar scenarios. It became a must-read in Trump’s first term, and is even more of one now.
They can chose trump as the speaker of the house (who doesn’t need to be a representative) and then get the president and vp to resign, to be removed, or die, and trump becomes acting president for the rest of the term.
Honestly, I would be very surprised if he were disallowed. Not only because, as you said, it is unclear if the 12th amendment eligibility conditions apply to conditions added after the 12th amendment and make no reference to modifying it. But also because the 22nd amendment does not, in fact, specify that someone who has served two terms is ineligible to be President. Rather it is very specifically a condition about being elected to president. If we’re interpreting the constitution strictly literally, the 22nd amendment doesn’t make a new condition for eligibility to be President, only for being elected president. So the 12th amendment would not apply. That may not have been the intent, but if anyone thinks the same Supreme Court that ruled that the President has absolute immunity on the use of his presidential powers isn’t going to let Trump slide right through that loophole… well, you could probably convince them it was raining as you piss on their leg.
He could run again as a placeholders VP, then have the placeholder resign after taking office. This would bypass the can only be “elected” twice rule.
Yes, there is an amendment that requires a VP to meet the same eligibility requirements as the president that should prevent this, but a corrupt court could rule that since that amendment does not explicitly mention term limits, those do not apply…
Lol they can bypass the vice president ineligibility part by chosing trump as speaker of the house and then run placeholder candidates for president and vice president, then get rid of them and trump becomes acting president for the rest of the term.
The clock is not reset like Russia.
Assuming he abides by constitutional law, this will be his final term.
When has he ever avoided by any laws?
Assuming he doesn’t change the rules and appoint himself president forever, then the limit is 2 terms, consecutive or not.
Even if a person started their presidential mandate partway through a 4 year cycle (as happened after Nixon stepped down and after Kennedy was shot), it’s still 2 terms, not necessarily 8 years.
If Trump dies in the next 4 years, Vance could serve out the current term and would only be eligible to become president for one additional term.
